by whestcide707 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 02:03 am
ok so i gave my19 yr old sister permission to drive my car to reno to go job hunting. while she was there she allowed her 17 yr old friend drive my car not knowing she was unlicensed. The friend rear ended a car and long story short my car is now sitting in a tow yard totalled. i reported it to my insurance and they tell me they are not liable for my car because the one driving it was not on my insurance..... so i talked to her parents and at first they took full responsibility told no matter what they would make sure it was all taken care of it. one week later i contact mom of sisters friend and she told me her insurance wont cover her daughter and that they arent giving me a dime. she told me to try to sue but i would loose because my sis gave her permission.!! so what do i do?? who is responsible? my sister didnt know she didnt have a license. Isnt her parents responsible because she is a minor?? i still owe 11thousand on my car.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 02:24 am Post Subject:
The only person responsible is you. Policies do not cover "other" drivers. Have the parents pay for it out of pocket? You can always sue the minors, but they can easily disavow even if you win. Normally a parent is not responsible for damages negligently caused by their children. But in some terms there are some exceptions to that rule.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 04:18 am Post Subject:
Two issues... your vehicle and the other person's vehicle (did you forget about the car she hit?). So you have a liability issue as well.
The driver of your vehicle is liable for the damage to the other person's car... no doubt about that. So the driver and her parents need to worry about that. I don't know what NV law is on liability and owner vs driver. That is, I know the driver is liable, I'm just not sure of the owner of a vehicle can be held liable. Lets come back to this in a moment.
Your carrier is also not extending collision coverage because a person driving was not listed on your policy? Sorry.... I've _never_ seen this exclusion in an auto policy. Have they sent you a written denial on the collision claim? Have they (or can they) point out in your policy where a non listed driver negates collision coverage? Now if that person lives in your household I could see where it might be excluded. But I don't think that is the case in this situation.
Now back to liability... if the adjuster screwed up on the collision coverage issue they might have also screwed up on the liability portion as well. There are a few questions to ask... by definition is the the driver of your vehicle considered an insured under your policy. This question has to do with permissive use... did the driver have your permission to use the vehicle (legally, not literary). This depends on state law. You gave permission to your sister to use the car but in NV does this mean that she can transfer that permission over to someone else. This only addresses liability coverage under your policy for the driver. You _should_ have liability coverage for yourself in case the owner can also be held liable in the state of NV.
Has the drivers carrier issued you a written denial? What is the possibility that the drivers parents never reported the accident to their carrier and they are just BSing you?
Personally, I'd also look at your sister for paying for your car. She should have known better then to loan your car to a 17 year old when she knew she did not have the authority to do this. You loaned your car to your sister and you expected to get it back in one piece. While accidents do happen, your sister should have known better then to let an inexperienced driver us _your_ car. At least light a flame under her butt so she learns a lesson.
You really need to follow up with your carrier and have them point out where in your policy collision coverage is excluded for an unlisted driver using your vehicle.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 09:44 am Post Subject:
Hi tcope..this is truly beyond my knowledge!
Suppose, the owner doesn't come across a single point (
in his policy) where it's mentioned that collision coverage would be excluded if the driver is unlisted...now, what would be the next step that he has to follow with the adjuster? Pinkfloydfan
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:49 am Post Subject:
Your carrier is also not extending collision coverage because a person driving was not listed on your policy? Sorry.... I've _never_ seen this exclusion in an auto policy.
Permissive use and negligent entrustment are not usually covered in a standard auto policy. Unless in the situation of theft, someone driving your car who is not listed on the policy or someone not known to you for that matter will not be covered. In this case, the damage inflicted upon person or property will in most cases not be covered by a person's policy.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 01:46 pm Post Subject:
Permissive use and negligent entrustment are not usually covered in a standard auto policy. Unless in the situation of theft, someone driving your car who is not listed on the policy or someone not known to you for that matter will not be covered.
You're speaking about liability coverage... not collision coverage as I mentioned. Also, that exclusion applies to the driver, not the named insured. Defense is a _very_ important part of the policy and what is of concern here for the OP. The OP's carrier may not provide a defense for the driver (jury is still out on that) but I don't think they should exclude a defense for the OP. If a defense is paying the liability claim, so be it. If it's protecting him against suit then that as well.Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 01:48 pm Post Subject:
now, what would be the next step that he has to follow with the adjuster?
I'd recommend filing a complaint with his states Dept of Insurance as well as NV's DOI. I'd also recommend speaking to the adjusters supervisor (after confirming that the collision and/or liability coverage is being denied to the OP an why).Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 02:02 pm Post Subject:
You're speaking about liability coverage... not collision coverage as I mentioned
It's not a question of liab or coll. The question is whether or not the OP's sister is listed on the policy. PU, would apply in that case. However, if the sister is not listed on the policy, the OP can induce PU, but the sister does not have the option to loan the vehicle to an unknown, especially an unlicensed driver. If this is the case, then most likely the insurer will deny coverage.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 02:27 pm Post Subject:
It's not a question of liab or coll
Sorry, it most certainly is. I'll give you an example... your vehicle is stolen and damage. Are you saying since the person who stole your vehicle did not have your permission to use the vehicle that your policy should not cover the damage to your vehicle?You are also blending liability coverage to the driver and the insured together. Those are two totally separate issues. As well as liability and collision coverage in this case.
However, if the sister is not listed on the policy, the OP can induce PU, but the sister does not have the option to loan the vehicle to an unknown, especially an unlicensed driver. If this is the case, then most likely the insurer will deny coverage.
Deny coverage to who? The insured and/or the driver? This is what I mean.. . it's two separate issues. if someone steals your vehicle and runs into someone your carrier is going to deny liability coverage to the driver of your vehicle but not to you. They won't pay the liability claim but they _will_ provide the insured a defense (as he's not liable). This is not the same as denying _coverage_ (far from it).Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 04:07 pm Post Subject:
Theft is not in the PU category obviously. Drivers listed on a policy do not have a PU authority. If my son is listed as a driver, he does not have the option to give an un known permission to operate the vehicle. Coverage can come into question for the insured in the case of both clauses and can result in a denial.
Recently I had garage claim with a car lot. Dealer reported vehicle damaged by a vendor. An employee of the dealer, listed on the policy as a driver gave permission to a vendor to operate the vehicle. This employee was told by the vendor that he was using the car take it to an interested party. Through my investigation, I discovered that this vendor was actually using the vehicle to go on a date and struck a parked vehicle. The insurer denied the coverage and the dealer is now suing the vendor for the damages.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 07:04 pm Post Subject:
If my son is listed as a driver, he does not have the option to give an un known permission to operate
Here is the exclusion from the PAP:
EXCLUSIONS
A "We" do not provide Liability Coverage for any "covered person":
8. Using a vehicle without a reasonable belief that person is entitled to do so
So the question is... did the driver know that she did not have permission to drive the vehicle? The person in possession of the vehicle gave her permission to use it. Should the driver have known that the owners daughter could not give permission to drive the vehicle? This type of thing happens all the time. When I was younger my parents helped me buy a car. On paper they owed the vehicle but it was mine to use as I saw fit. I had the authority to loan "my" vehicle to someone else and they certainly would have no reason to think I did not own the vehicle and/or have authority to allow them to use it.
All of this goes to liability coverage toward the _driver_. Please feel free to quote a PU exclusion that applies to the named insured (I don't think you will find one... even on heavily modified ISO forms).
I also don't think you will find one under the collision coverage portion of the policy. This would penalize the named insured for no reason. The insured is paying for collision coverage but if someone takes the vehicle w/o his permission he's SOL? That simply does not make sense.
Add your comment